Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess

by David Lawson

  Unquestionably it is Morphy’s chess problem and his only one. Ernest Morphy sent it, together with a Morphy game (about which more later) and a letter dated June 10, 1856, to the New York Clipper, and both were published—the letter in the June 21, 1856, issue, and the problem and game in the June 28, 1856, issue. Sam Loyd also published the problem in the New York Musical World of April 30, 1859, together with Louis Paulsen’s only chess problem.

  Ernest Morphy has given us a picture of Paul as a young boy about ten, in an incident with a Dr. Camille Rizzo who had some reputation in New Orleans as a composer of chess problems and who also conducted the “Académie des Èchecs” for the teaching of chess. Ernest describes the incident in the following letter in the Macon Telegraph of May 23, 1867. (The account of the meeting first appeared in the Quincy Whig in 1859.)

  Quincy, Adams Co. Ill., March 8, 1867

  Mr. S. Boykin, Macon, Georgia

  Dear Sir:—

  Here is a little incident of Paul’s early career, hardly known, but of some interest. . . . About nineteen years ago, there lived in New Orleans an Italian, Dr. Rizzo, who had acquired some notoriety by the composition of some inverse problems. The Signor unfortunately extended that mania of the inverse even to the game itself; and maintained that he ought to be declared the victor who could obtain a preponderance of forces such as to force a suimate, or better still as he invariably termed it, “a sublime suimate.” The feat, of course he could perform only against inferior opponents. But to our incident: Mr. Charles Le Carpentier, Paul’s uncle, had declared to Rizzo that he had a little nephew, only ten years, who could beat him at the natural game; and the challenge having been accepted, the next day saw them at the Doctor’s house, across the board, Charles Le Carpentier acting as umpire and the sole spectator.

  The game went on for some twenty moves, when Lo! A fortuitous position happened, concealing a position of checkmate in four moves against Paul. While Rizzo was pondering on his move, Le Carpentier quietly looked at his nephew and saw a picture for a painter. There, motionless sat the chap, his little bosom heaving, and two large tears of vexation flowing along his cheeks. He also had seen the impending mate. But mirabile dictu! Rizzo moves at last, overlooking the mate, and obliged after ten moves to strike his colors. He could not be prevailed upon to fight a second time.

  Very respectfully, yours, &c.

  Ernest Morphy

  In the following excerpt from the New Orleans Times-Democrat of December 30, 1894, another observer, S. Spencer, tells of seeing the young Paul Morphy at chess:

  It was but three years after the Stanley–Rousseau match of 1845 that the wonderful feats of chess of a boy aged about eleven began to be bruited about. He had played with his relatives and friends, some of whom were able and experienced amateurs, and had vanquished them all. The veteran Rousseau had been pitted against him, and he in turn had gone down before the victorious child. All his school mates had heard of his prowess and there were few who did not look upon him with a species of awe. It was said that he had learned chess without a master by simply looking on at the games played at his father’s house.

  Such was the beginning of Paul Morphy’s chess career. Well do we remember seeing him from the street playing chess with his grandfather, Mr. Le Carpentier, in the latter’s counting room, situated in the lower story of his residence. The boy was small, and the ledgers or other of grandpa’s commercial books had to be piled up under him to enable him to sit at the required height to the table; and when we thus saw him we did not know, but learned afterward, that the grandson was all the time giving grandpa the odds of a rook and beating him like old Harry.

  As the year 1849 approached, Paul was demonstrating the strength of a master, and this without benefit of books as vouched for by Ernest Morphy. He now began playing with the strongest of New Orleans players, in addition to Uncle Ernest. On his twelfth birthday, June 22, 1849, Paul undertook a blindfold game against his Uncle Ernest and as he made his twentieth move, he remarked that he must now win. Thereupon, Dr.A. P. Ford, an old chess opponent of Ernest’s, carried Paul into an adjoining room and presented him with an inlaid mother-of-pearl chessboard, which is now possessed by the author.*

  (It might be mentioned at this time that the game given by Sergeant [GAME XCVII] in Morphy’s Games of Chess as played between Paul Morphy and the above-mentioned Dr. A. P. Ford was not played by Paul Morphy, nor was it a blindfold game. Dr. Ford’s opponent was Ernest Morphy, and the game was played October 5, 1840. The game was sent by Ernest Morphy himself as his game to the Cincinnati Sunday Dispatch and Porter’s Spirit of the Times in 1859. The author has the original score as recorded by Ernest Morphy. Therefore, this game should not appear in any future collection of Paul Morphy’s games.)**

  Among the best players of the New Orleans Chess Club in the late 1840s were Eugène Rousseau (undoubtedly the strongest), Ernest Morphy, Dr. A. P. Ford, Charles Le Carpentier, and James (later Judge) McConnell. Years later, at a Manhattan Chess Club dinner, Judge McConnell related the following experience with Paul Morphy, as reported in the New Orleans Times-Democrat of December 3, 1905:

  [Judge McConnell] declared that after an experience at chess that covered nearly if not quite a half century, and of personal play with practically every great master of the game, famous during that period, he had long since reached the conclusion that not one possessed the remarkable intuitive grasp of the possibilities of the game that Morphy displayed. While he undoubtedly possessed a memory of wonderful powers, and so practically never forgot whatever he deemed worth remembering in relation to the game, whether moves, openings, defenses, or even whole games, yet it was this faculty of instant appreciation of all, or practically all, that lay in a given position at chess that most markedly distinguished and differentiated the greatest American master. In illustration of this point, Mr. McConnell related an anecdote of his own first meeting with Morphy in the latter part of the 1840’s, when the latter was a little lad only about twelve years old. Mr. McConnell was even at that time one of the leading players of the Crescent City, and having heard much from Ernest Morphy, Eugène Rousseau and other local chessists of the strength of the little Paul, he determined to take no risks in the game nor to treat his little adversary with any lightness.

  After a long struggle, by a rather neat combination of his own, as he thought, Mr. McConnell had succeeded in winning a clear piece, when suddenly, in more minutely examining the position, he discovered that, by a most recondite line of play, some seven or eight moves deep, following a move with which he was obliged to conclude his combination, his youthful adversary might turn seeming defeat into victory. Somewhat disconcerted, he, however, succeeded in concealing his emotion over the discovery, and thinking that it was almost impossible that so young a player as his antagonist could have penetrated so deeply into the position, he proceeded, with seeming unconcern, to make his move. Imagine his consternation when, almost before his hand had quitted his piece, his young opponent not only instantly made the coup juste in reply, but followed it up with the whole series of winning moves without the slightest hesitation.

  Out of the thirty games played with McConnell about that time, Paul lost but one. From the above account by Judge McConnell it is evident that Paul had been playing Rousseau before him. Eugène Rousseau was well known in European chess circles. In a series of one hundred games with Kieseritzky—best known as the editor of La Régence and for his games with Anderssen, and the Kieseritzky Gambit—Rousseau had barely lost the contest. He was well known in this country for his match with Stanley in 1845. During 1848–1849, out of over fifty games with Paul, he may have won five at most. Of all these games, the records of but two survive.

  The following game with Rousseau is the first Paul Morphy game to be published, and it has become a part of chess history. Ernest Morphy sent it to Kieseritzky, together with a letter, and both were published in the January 1851 issue of La Régence as follows:

  New Orleans, October 31, 1849 />
  Dear Sir,

  I send you herewith a game of chess played on the 28th instant between Mr. R. [Rousseau] and the young Paul Morphy, my nephew, who is only twelve. This child has never opened a work on chess; he has learnt the game himself by following the parties played between members of his family. In the openings he makes the right moves as if by inspiration; and it is astonishing to note the precision of his calculations in the middle and end game. When seated before the chessboard, his face betrays no agitation even in the most critical positions; in such cases he generally whistles an air through his teeth and patiently seeks for the combination to get him out of trouble. Further, he plays three or four severe enough games every Sunday (the only day on which his father allows him to play) without showing the least fatigue.

  Your devoted friend

  Ernest Morphy

  This is GAME CXLIV of Sergeant’s collection, and with its publication, the second period of Paul’s chess career may be said to have begun.

  FOOTENOTES

  ______________

  * EDITOR’S NOTE: The Banque de la Louisiane was actually established in 1805, following American transfer rather than following statehood. Additionally, Louisiana became a state on April 30, 1812, not 1813.

  * EDITOR’S NOTE: In 1978, chess publisher Dale Brandreth purchased Lawson’s collection of Morphy memorabilia. He donated the bulk of Lawson’s letters and documents to the Cleveland Public Library, but they are as yet uncatalogued and unavailable to public researchers.

  ** EDITOR’S NOTE: Again, the whereabouts of this original score are unknown, but the preponderance of evidence provided by Lawson throughout seems to back his contention.

  CHAPTER 3

  A Surprise Encounter

  We now come to the major highlight of Paul’s early chess career. Exactly two months after the Morphy–Rousseau game mentioned in Chapter 2 was played, Johann J. Lowenthal, a political refugee from Hungary, arrived in New York, a total stranger to the land, although well known in European chess circles. He had come to the United States hoping to start a new life in the West.

  One day soon after his arrival, in deep dejection, he picked up a copy of the New York Albion, and, although the language was strange to him, he chanced upon a chess problem in the newspaper’s pages. Immediately he felt a welcoming to the land, and the next day, having called upon the editor, he was given an introduction to Charles H. Stanley, of whom he had heard in Europe. Through Stanley’s introductions, Lowenthal met other American players across the country.

  It may not be amiss to mention at this time, in view of what was to happen some months later, that during his short stay in New York, Lowenthal met successfully the city’s best players over the chessboard. Journeying westward, he was similarly successful in Lexington, Cincinnati, and Louisville, frequently giving odds to the local players. After a short stay in Louisville, he departed for New Orleans, arriving there on May 18, 1850.

  Maurian tells the following story of Lowenthal’s visit in the New Orleans Picayune of January 17, 1909:

  It was while Paul was at the height of his early reputation that Lowenthal, the Hungarian master, considered one of the great players of the time, arrived in New Orleans. . . .

  Lowenthal’s reputation was such that the chess players of New Orleans planned to give him a great reception, and at the little club in the Third District the foreigner was royally entertained. He contested a number of off-hand games in which he was successful against the city’s strong players, and then it was that Mr.Ernest Morphy told him of Paul’s skill and invited him to the Judge’s house to meet the lad.

  Herr Lowenthal had heard of infant wonders before, and while he accepted the invitation to the Judge’s house he did not expect 21 to find in Paul anything more than in the usual juvenile chess genius. The Judge welcomed his guest, and after dinner the gentlemen repaired to the drawing-room for a game of chess.Herr Lowenthal saw little Paul, patted him on the head patron-izingly and smiled as he entered the lists against the youngster. Herr Lowenthal, not wishing to take advantage of the boy, offered to give him odds, but Judge Morphy and Mr. Ernest Morphy insisted that the visitor play Paul on equal terms, and then if the lad was found easy, he might be given a handicap for the next game.

  The battle began, and Paul, in no wise disturbed at the reputation of his opponent, played with his usual skill and confidence. The contest had not gone a dozen moves before Herr Lownthal realized that he was up against the hardest proposition he had ever sought to solve. The first game was of no great length, and to the surprise of every one Paul won handily. Another game was played with similar result and a third also went to the school boy.

  Henceforth his reputation extended beyond the circle of his relatives and friends; and if, prior to this encounter, there had been doubtful Thomases who had misgivings about his genius, they certainly disappeared now.

  Such, indeed, was the confidence inspired by his victory over Lowenthal that certain gentlemen, with more enthusiasm than discretion, suggested to Judge Morphy the propriety of sending his son to the International Chess Congress announced to take place in London in 1851. The practical father, however, refused to consider such a proposition, and instead of going to England, Paul Morphy in December 1850 entered college.

  In Brentano’s Chess Monthly of November 1880, General Tillson gives Ernest Morphy’s description of Lowenthal’s encounter with the young Paul:

  Paul, he says, was a little fellow and stood up to the table. Mr.Morphy and his brother, Judge Morphy, the father of Paul, [and Rousseau] were lookers-on. Lowenthal was one of the most noted and scientific players in the world, and a finished courteous gentleman. He at first supposed that the game would be a bagatelle, but Mr. Morphy told me that as he [Lowenthal] got into the game and felt Paul’s force, his startled look and upraised brows after each move of Paul’s was perfectly ludicrous[,] or as Mr. Morphy in his French vernacular expressed it, “comique.”

  While Charles Maurian was not present when these games with Lowenthal were played (he and Paul were only some months apart in age), he knew many of those who were present and later became quite intimate with them. As he said in an interview published in the New Orleans Times-Democrat of June 10, 1892, he knew Rousseau and Ernest and Judge Morphy very well. There are records of chess games he played with them, and with others of the unnamed people who were present at the Morphy–Lowenthal encounter. Maurian also says in the Times-Democrat article that he

  who for years lived with him [Paul Morphy] in daily companionship, who played chess with him almost daily, who talked chess with him almost constantly, heard from his own lips and many a time all the details of this self-same encounter with Lowenthal in 1850.

  Maurian does not reveal in his Picayune account (and perhaps did not know) that only the first game was played on May 22, 1850. Lowenthal returned on May 25, undoubtedly expecting to do better, but he also lost the two games played that day. It is usually mentioned in Morphy collections that one of the games ended in a draw, as Ernest Morphy also stated.But more about that later.

  Ernest Morphy was the first to disclose the story of Lowenthal’s defeat by Paul in the 1850 encounter and then only after six years had passed. In 1856 he sent the following letter to a New York weekly, the Clipper, which had started a chess column, and the letter was published in its June 21, 1856, issue.

  Moscow, Clermont County, Ohio

  June 10, 1856

  N. Marache, Esq.

  Chess Editor of the New York Clipper

  Dear Sir:

  For years past Mr. Rousseau, on account of important and arduous duties, and myself as a votary of rural life, have both given up playing chess. My nephew, Paul Morphy, who is incontestably our superior, now holds the scepter of chess in New Orleans. In May, 1850, when only thirteen years of age, he played three games with the celebrated Hungarian player, Mr. Lowenthal. The first game was drawn, and the two others gloriously won by Master Paul.

  You have herewith one of these games�
��unfortunately the only one recorded—and also a two-move enigma composed as far back as 1849.

  Yours, most sincerely

  Ernest Morphy

  (A second game, a Sicilian Defense, Morphy later remembered for Fiske, who published it in the Chess Monthly in 1859.) The game with notes that Ernest Morphy enclosed with his letter was a Petroff Defense. The enigma or problem was a two-mover, Paul’s only problem, which was discussed in Chapter 2. Both the game with Ernest Morphy’s notes and the problem were published in the Clipper on June 28, 1856. In presenting the game, the chess editor commented as follows:

  HONOR TO CHESS

  We specially call the attention of our readers to the game published in this week’s issue, played between Paul Morphy (now the leading player of New Orleans) and Herr Lowenthal, when a resident of the United States. We copy the game, with its notes, verbatim, from a score sent us by our esteemed correspondent, Ernest Morphy. Problem No. 10, also a pretty and classic contribution from the same youthful chess genius, is well worthy of attention.

  GAME NO. 10

  Played in 1850, between Master Paul Morphy, when thirteen years old, and Herr Lowenthal, the celebrated Hungarian player.

  PETROFF’S DEFENSE

  a. A feasible sacrifice of two minor Pieces for a Rook, two Pawns and the gain of several moves.

  b. The best move.

  c. Was it preferable to take with Knight?

  d. A clever disposition of Pawns to annul the power of adverse Knight. Between superior players such minutiae generally decide the fate of the day.